No Big Ideas, Just the Honest Truth!

Russ Steele

We watched Romney’s acceptance speech to night, it was positive and uplifting.  The Obama team says that there were no great ideas in the Romney speech. From the audience in front of our TV, including two genrations, we all agreed there were no great ideas —  just the honest truth!

Advertisements

About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

30 Responses to No Big Ideas, Just the Honest Truth!

  1. Arthur M. Day. says:

    Poor poor Devout Democrats, intellectually and morally bankrupt, a failed President, the economy on the brink of hyperinflation, the CO2 swindle unraveling, cities and states going bankrupt.
    We are probably past the point of “Big Ideas” to the rescue.
    But what else can they do but lie and snipe. To admit their failure is to explode their personas.

  2. Sean says:

    No great ideas. Romney’s objective is to help families. No messianic illusions of saving the planet and all future generations. Who in heavens name could that appeal to?

  3. stevefrisch says:

    Yeah, lets plant our heads firmly in the sand and save your family today, so they can starve tomorrow. What amazing leadership. And while we are at it lets turn the people who thing we need to think about tomorrow into a joke, and have our introductory speaker imply that Obama would actually say “go fu(# yourself” to Mr. Romney.

    • Todd Juvinall says:

      We knew the communists would not like it. No big deal.

      • stevefrisch says:

        We knew the fascists and racists would eat it up. No surprise.

        (of course I do not believe that all readers here are fascists and racists, but as long as Todd gets to paint those who disagree as communists, hey its fair game.)

    • Sean says:

      An interesting expression, “plant our heads firmly in the sand”. The starvation tomorrrow you warn of is arrived at through a series of extrapolation and assumptions that are ultimately rooted in computer models, running on little computer chips made of silicon that are derived ultimately from sand. These are the same computer models that cannot predict (or even hind cast) the ocean cycles that drive the hydraulic cycle. These are the same computer models that still cannot adequately model clouds. These are the same computer models that applying “high school physics” to the global climate system and turn CO2 into an analog dial.
      I think you can make a very good case that the climate modeling community, which is the basis of the catastrophic forcasts, has firm placed its head, its heart, its faith and anything else that fits firmly into computation systems running on little pieces of silicon that are derived from sand. Perhaps it is time to come up for air and have a look at the weather.

      • stevefrisch says:

        A good point Sean, and I would readily admit that climate modeling is at best an imperfect process; but your point ignores other data.

        As someone who has been present when climate modeling data is presented, both from authors of the IPCC report and others, I can tell you from experience that it is never presented alone as a rationale for the theory. As a matter of fact, those very same modelers regularly state the imperfection of the process. To highlight the imperfection of the process I regularly see modelers present 30-40 different models, all done independently, and place their particular models in the context of the others. But when you have 30-40 models, and each points (with one or two notable outliers) to an increase in global temperature, and the average is in the 2-4 degree C range, it is pretty compelling.

        But even more important, climate modeling is only one part of the picture. The fact that climate is changing, it is partly human caused, and that the incremental portion of it that is human caused is significant enough to cause great danger, is based on direct observation, phenological data, tree ring data, ice core data, ice cap data, infrared long wave radiation data, direct temperature data, orbiting satellite data, glacial retreat, increases in extreme weather events, ocean acidification data, and dozens of other sources. Climate modeling is just one piece of corroborating evidence in a much larger proof of concept.

        To think that tens of thousands of scientists got together and agreed to perpetrate a fraud to align data from 20 different fields over 40 years is just a flight of fancy, and nothing but a convenient ploy to obscure the truth.

        What Russ seeks to do is narrow down from this overwhelming body of evidence to create doubt about specific pieces of information, and transfer the doubt about one to all others. This is kind of the opposite of the scientific method.

  4. Romney laid down a challenge to President Obama that went something like this: “I’ve got a plan to stir the economy, create jobs, and halt America’s decline. Where’s yours?” If Obama fails to offer one at the Democratic convention next week in Charlotte, the whole country will be aware.

    • stevefrisch says:

      Actually Russ, I could not agree more. Although Romney’s plan was not stated, one has to read his web site to get the details, it was a direct challenge to President Obama. The President better lay his plan on the table in Charlotte and fight for it for the next 60 days. That is all the people really care about.

  5. Russ says:

    Steven you wrote:
    “But even more important, climate modeling is only one part of the picture. The fact that climate is changing, it is partly human caused, and that the incremental portion of it that is human caused is significant enough to cause great danger, is based on direct observation, phenological data, tree ring data, ice core data, ice cap data, infrared long wave radiation data, direct temperature data, orbiting satellite data, glacial retreat, increases in extreme weather events, ocean acidification data, and dozens of other sources. Climate modeling is just one piece of corroborating evidence in a much larger proof of concept.”

    Can you please cite some peer reviewed papers that support your claims that ice core support the human influence in CO2 and climate. One on increased extreme weather would be nice, and one of IR radiation from satellite observations would also be helpful. Also, please identify the temperature data base that supports human CO2 impacts. With out scientific support for your claims they are hollow.

  6. benjaminemery says:

    I am going to try and change the debate here on the issue of GW/ CC. We have been seeing all around the planet a huge increase of “weather” patterns at the margins, meaning record lows and highs. We also have been seeing the rare or first timers becoming more frequent as well. Whether we are talking temperatures, storms, droughts, rains, snow falls, polar caps melting, ect…

    Shouldn’t we try and figure out what is going on? I consider doubling down by increasing the current status quo a very irresponsible approach.

    Everything in the global society relies on predictability in the seasons and weather. Although no expert on agriculture my work has weather triggers involved in it. Fruit trees need a certain amount of cold weather otherwise it affects spring growth and blooming, which creates increased circumstances of poor yields through a number of factors.

    To take this to a global scale. There are millions of people who rely on the slow melts of the Himalaya’s for their agriculture and drinking water. They are finding there is less ice and a shorter water season creating some huge obstacles for those who have had a reliable consistent water source that shaped the culture for centuries. It doesn’t just affect the pocket books of those in the rural Sierra Nevada County.

    • Sean says:

      The weather patterns are a very interesting topic. The best seasonal forecaster I know are people that look at the oceans, where they are in both their annuals cycles (ENSO is one of these) and their multidecadenal cycles (the PDO and the AMO) and then make their best guess based on similar set ups from previous ocean records. Since good ocean records go back to early last century and we’ve been through a complete PDO and AMO cycle in that time, pretty good predictions can be made 3-6 months out just from observations.
      The Met Office in the UK has some of the best climate modelers in the world. They love their global circulation models and they make predictions on what to expect with seasonal forecasts. Just this last March, after a warm dry winter, they predicted a warm dry spring and summer and there was talk of water shortages. Literally within days of that forecast the skies openened up and mother nature turned off the heat and the UK was subjected to one of its coldest wettest springs on record. Oddly enough I don’t hold that against them. The models are crude and are known to produce terrible regional forecasts. But I can’t understand why the Met Office keeps using these GCM’s season after season to make poor forecasts. They undermine any credibility the public might have in the GCM’s or the Met Office itself.
      As far as the odd or extreme weather, keep in mind that the climate models predict little warming at low latitudes and a great deal of warming at high latitudes so smaller gradients from the poles to equator. Given that you can extract the greatest amount of energy when the temperature gradients are largest, wouldn’t it follow that a world with smaller gradients between the poles and the tropics would have more benign weather? What we are seeing with extreme weather these days may be more of an indication of changes in state that are a result of the PDO shifting to a cool state early in the last decade. The weather in the continental US is getting more like the 1950’s to 1970’s when the PDO was in its cold phase and the AMO was in its warm phase as it is now. Whatever very minor warming has occured as a result of added CO2 is only a small nudge on a much stronger natural cycle. By the middle of the 2020’s both the Atlantic and Pacific basins should be in their cold phases together and mother nature will let us know if CO2 is dominatinng the global climate or if it is something else.
      When it comes to being worried about global food supplies, consider that we are diverting 40% of the US corn crop and Brazil is growing sugar cane to make ethanol and folks are not starving, they are only complaining about price. When greenhouse gas theories can result in diversion of that quantity of food being diverted to motor fuels and the only issue is price in a bad crop year, we have a long way to go before mass starvation is a reality.

  7. benjaminemery says:

    Sean,
    I went through the history of weather events in US from 1900- present they all are showing something different than the 50’s- 70’s but I wasn’t specifically looking at the similarities either, I will take another look. For things such as hurricanes, tornado’s, and amount of moisture in storms all seem to have dramatically increased over the last 20- 30 years. At its face it looks like something bigger than normal patterns going on. The other is the polar caps becoming more accessible than ever in recorded history. I generally do not argue on one side or the other about the CO2 issue because I am not climatologists or have any desire to become one professionally or even as a novice. I will leave that up to those who have passion towards the subject.

    • Sean says:

      There is one other aspect to this as well. A couple of years ago the city of Brisbane Australia was flooded because the flood contro dams in the water shed above the city were not used properly. Back in the 70’s, Brisbane was innudated and a flood control/water storage system was put in place. Apparently there are regions of the Australian continent that cycle between high rain and low rain periods. Since there ahd been several dry years in a row and climate models had predicted more drought as the world got warmer the flood control aspect of the dam seemed to have been forgotten. Some of the regional weather forecasters saw the heavy rains coming but the folks managing the dam work operating on a drought narrative. So when the rains hit, the dam was at 85% capacity and it did no have a sufficient buffer to manage the incoming water. It required an uncontrolled release in the middle of a deluge and Brisbane was flooded. It should never have happened.

      The problem with climate models is they produce linear or exponentially increasing results. The climate is a roller coaster going up and down in a fairly narrow band (at least in our lifetimes). I fear that the climate models were “calibrated” when the roller coaster was going up hill and is now being applied when the weather changes direction. That will lead to a lot of unintended consequences if we use them to set policies.

      • Ben Emery says:

        Sean,
        Thanks for the civil discussion, its a rarity around here. Personally I would like the human race error on the side of caution when the consequences could be so catastrophic.

  8. Arthur M. Day. says:

    I’m sure glad the precautionary principle is a recent delusion. If it had started when the species started, we would all still be sleeping under the bushes in the rain.

    • Ben Emery says:

      Art,
      Conservation being looked down upon by today’s conservatives is a disgrace.

      • Sean says:

        Why do you think conseratives look down on conservation? More importantly do you think being green and pushing rewables is consistent with conservation? How much undeveloped land is being turned over to agricultural use because of biofuels? The dead zone in the gulf of Mexico seems to expand and contract in proportion to the corn harvest, 40% of which goes to ethanol production. How much agricultural land is being developed in Brazil to support their biofuel efforts. Then in Indonesia, rain forest habitat for Orangutans is being cut down for palm oil plantations. On the other hand, enhanced drilling techniques are resulting in natural gas so cheap that beating the economics of coal on cost alone and it’s much cleaner. Natural gas was considered a bridge to th future by environmentalists until it got so abundant it could be used for decades to come. And don’t even mention raptors and windmills.
        Environmental concern is a privilege of rich nations not poor ones. People who are concerned about conservation need to be just as cautious about the solution for CO2 emissions as they are about the current energy infrastructure. And economic decline as a consequence of poor solutions will have the worst environmental impact of all.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Sean is making a compelling and valid case here. This could be the beginning of a very interesting conversation.

      • Ben Emery says:

        Sean,
        The comment isn’t aimed at yourself but Arthur Day’s negative comment about precautionary principle. I believe we first need to reduce our energy consumption of fossil fuels by conservation. Once reaching high efficiency we then can assess our needs present and future.
        – Federal stimulus program of weatherizing homes and business’s that could save up to 25% of wasted energy and keep more money in our pockets that could be spent in the economy. The one downfall for corporate controlled government is reduction in profits of major energy plants at the same time reducing demand and burning of fossil fuels, which would reduce cost and pollution.

        – Promote electric mass transit in urban areas by supplementing or out right powering through solar, wind, bio mass, tidal, geo thermal. Whatever is conducive in region. Once again reducing the burning of fossil fuels reducing costs and pollution and promoting renewable energy industry.

        – Outlawing pirate or vampire in appliances which are estimated to suck10% of electric energy used in US today. Reducing demand and burning of coal or natural gas.

        – Flip subsides from century long established fossil fuel industry towards renewable energy industry. I am not a big supporter of bio-fuel unless we are talking about hemp oil that has a very high efficiency rate for conversion. It is not a level playing field when the status quo fossil fuels have received billions and billions of dollars in subsides.

        – Use new technology to reduce current emissions in segments that are high polluters. This will reduce external costs that come from pollution of air, water, soil, and human health.

        – Invest into solar on homes feeding the central plant reducing their need to burn fossil fuels or damming up rivers accumulating underwater mountains of toxic sludge. Germany has done so and has created enough energy equal to eight nuclear power plants.

        – Invest in a more efficient electric energy delivery system. I forgot the number but it is rather high of lost energy in our very inefficient outdated delivery system.

  9. Arthur M. Day. says:

    What B. O.’s EPA is doing now isn’t conservation, it’s destruction.

  10. Todd Juvinall says:

    Sean is a realist. The eco nuts are not. All the “green” technology still requires the earth to produce ways to construct and capture the “energy”. For instance, A Prius may get 50 miles per gallon but when you add up all the different materials in one, the eco part becomes no better than my Suburban. The Prius uses batteries manufactures by people on an assembly line (who probably drove to the job) with some very long lasting dangerous materials. Also those materials were mined someplace and transported. When all is said an done, the Prius is probably worse for the environment, only wealthy folks can get them, and their recycling needs men in moon suits. Not such a good deal for the planet. But it makes the eco nuts “feel” better.

  11. Arthur M. Day. says:

    What do you get when you separate a Prius driver from his Prius? Smug abatement.
    Mr. Emery: Do your eyes automatically close when they scan across the recent report that Germany is only realizing 16% of rated output from it’s wind mills. And that they are building 23 new COAL plants to keep the lights on?

    • Todd Juvinall says:

      Arthur, how dare you supply BenE facts. He will have a cow! Oops they flatulate, sorry.

  12. Ben Emery says:

    Art,
    There is a way of communicating without being an asshole, just in case you didn’t know.

    • stevefrisch says:

      Clearly he does not know that Ben…his very identity is defined by being an a-hole. But then again Todd and Art are not really the reasons we post here are they? It is the couple of dozen regular lurkers, who see the debate and form their own opinions about the intellectual qualities of the participants.

      • Todd Juvinall says:

        You and BenE are laughed at by all here. You guys are a cartoon.

  13. Arthur M. Day. says:

    Mr Frisch and Mr. Emery: Please keep it up, you guys are ever so much fun to play with. I’m going to put in a strongly worded recommendation that you two share the Hot Air Balloonist Award for 2012. That is, if we can manage to extricate you two from that infamous Fog Bound Benighted Swamp of Self Congratulation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: